Is Valve's Steam antithetical to Linux and the very core of the open source spirit?

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The premise behind OP is horribly flawed: without Steam, a good share of future users will run Windows, an operating system "antithetical to Linux and the very core of the open source spirit".

So please, give me a break.

This is the main retort. People are excited about Steam because it's a popular brand and bandwagon and lends credible popularity, even if it isn't doing anything interesting technologically and even if it isn't principled and expects to take a large share of revenues without logical justification. Those sound like weak reasons to support it and strong reasons to oppose it.

With most regular apps software, that is how it works. Individuals use it or they don't and that's how it is.

With Steam, I sense that there is a larger group mindset saying, "no matter what game it is, no matter who made it, this service is the rightful center of gaming, this is where everyone should be buying their games through and where developers need to distribute through."

With most regular apps software, that is how it works. Individuals use it or they don't and that's how it is.

With Steam, I sense that there is a larger group mindset saying, "no matter what game it is, no matter who made it, this service is the rightful center of gaming, this is where everyone should be buying their games through and where developers need to distribute through."

I want to discourage that type of coercion.

Yes, and?
Don't play games if you don't like it.
Steam is the best game distribution service available, game developers aren't going to stop using it because it goes against your RMS agenda.

This is the main retort. People are excited about Steam because it's a popular brand and bandwagon and lends credible popularity, even if it isn't doing anything interesting technologically and even if it isn't principled and expects to take a large share of revenues without logical justification. Those sound like weak reasons to support it and strong reasons to oppose it.

If you really want software freedom as a principle, popularity and pragmatism over elitism and purity is the option to preach those principles, and to convert people who don't care about them into people who follow them. Steam will benefit the Free ecosystem, it is already benefiting it, since Mesa is being pushed to its limits for the first time in a couple of years, and, as long as you can access ordinary desktops from a Steam Box (something that is going to be possible) will expose more and more users to alternatives. Also, remember Free Software is free as in FREEDOM, not as in price: you can sell support packages for free software, and neophytes who are coming here through Steam would be happy to pay for someone else to deal with their issues.

You are seeing this just like the RIAA sees piracy.
In order to demonstrate that steam does harm to the open source spirit, you'd have to show that there would have been games that, if steam wasn't there, would have been released with less DRM, or more open source, or whatever you think is better. Or that in the absence of steam, a more open platform would have emerged bringing games to Linux.
It is much more likely that, without steam, those hypothetical games would either not have been released, or released with in-house DRM (all that noting that being on steam doesn't prevent you from delivering through other means, with or without DRM, like humble bundles). The "open" gaming platform is completely utopic.

But that's not enough. You would then need to prove that the amount of games not released DRM free (which, I think, is negative), is more harmful to OSS than the user and corporate interest, awareness and viability steam brings to the Linux ecosystem.

So, all in all, I think that while Valve is not perfect, it is contributing to Linux in its own not-fully-open way, just like Canonical and Red-Hat do.

*sight*, ok First of all Steam didn't make mesa getting boosted Intel did that first. Though Windows 8 which scared Gabe Newell to the death decided to jump to linux and get things going. It's true to say that with Steam on linux, Intel has optimized their driver better than it used to be (which is kinda normal since most linux games aren't demanding at all).

DanLamb is an "idealist" (i think is the correct term), who can't assimilate others' opinion on this specific subject. Happens to all of us in very specific subjects.

Valve has NDA to hide their special contract deals with Devs whom want to distribute their game on Steam. But I dare you (DanLamb) to prove that Valve is coercing Devs over their games to be distributed on Steam. Also what would be their reasons? if you don't like it then you can enjoy Desura's platform which is open source.

Dan you used to use windows, am i right? well MS had that kind of coercion that you speak about over every one (well, almost every one). But since that trick didn't please many, specially when Win 8 is around with Secure boot and etc, then you can see common end user to switch to linux or even Mac OS X.

So step back take a deep breath and go meditate on this matter from a new point of view or whatever, i guess many had made their point about not agreeing with your statement/point of view/way of thinking.

Yes, and?
Don't play games if you don't like it.
Steam is the best game distribution service available, game developers aren't going to stop using it because it goes against your RMS agenda.

I'm not an RMS adherent. I like lots of various Gnu projects for their utility, and he's probably a nice guy, but he falls short of being a great philosopher.

With individual game titles, I completely support DRM, pay-to-play, subscriptions, DLC, ad-ware, and whatever else consumers and developers consent to.

if game devs and/or consumers are really happy with it and think it makes sense, then great. I see elements of coercion with Steam that I don't support and think the community should be fully aware of. I don't think Valve deserves a substantial cut of the revenue of games developed completely outside of Valve and I don't think they effort they've put into Steam warrants that much revenue.

Antithetical to the core of the open source spirit, maybe. I think my main support for opensource operating systems comes from my hatred of monopolies. Stream has in many ways position itself with a monopoly over pc gaming, and who knows, if their consoles a big hit maybe they'll dominate tv screens as well.

That said, other games companies have ignored Linux for far to long and a steam monopoly is better for us than no games at all. So in the short term Steam is a very good thing for Linux and I, as a gamer, am glad to have it. Just wish it was 64 bit :P